* licensing questions @ 2019-01-01 0:00 Paulo Matos 2019-01-01 0:00 ` Basile Starynkevitch 2019-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm 0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Paulo Matos @ 2019-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jit Hi, libgccjit is released with GCC and therefore GPLv3. This seems to mean, from my relatively low knowledge in this area, that all libraries linking to libgccjit to create bindings and libraries and applications linking to this library are forced into GPLv3. I though LGPL was created with the purpose of stopping the viral spread of GPLv3. Was it the authors decision to make it GPLv3 instead of LGPL - which would have been, I guess, more flexible? Kind regards, -- Paulo Matos ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: licensing questions 2019-01-01 0:00 licensing questions Paulo Matos @ 2019-01-01 0:00 ` Basile Starynkevitch 2019-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm 1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Basile Starynkevitch @ 2019-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paulo Matos, jit On 2/21/19 6:23 PM, Paulo Matos wrote: > Hi, > > libgccjit is released with GCC and therefore GPLv3. > This seems to mean, from my relatively low knowledge in this area, that > all libraries linking to libgccjit to create bindings and libraries and > applications linking to this library are forced into GPLv3. Why would that be a problem? I see that as an advantage! > > I though LGPL was created with the purpose of stopping the viral spread > of GPLv3. Was it the authors decision to make it GPLv3 instead of LGPL - > which would have been, I guess, more flexible? I am not a lawyer, and I am not member of FSF or of GCC steering committee. (In the past, I did contribute some plugin-related code of GCC). But libgccjit is a derivative of, and now a part of, GCC, and GCC is mostly GPLv3+ licensed. You are allowed to compile proprietary programs with GCC thanks to the GCC Runtime Library exception. Study it https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.en.html carefully. Notice that GCC plugins almost have to be free software... to allow you to still compile proprietary code using them. I cannot say for sure if the GCC Runtime Library exception applies to libgccjit, and how exactly (I believe it does apply). Ask your lawyers, and ask the FSF. I don't like stating that GPLv3 is viral. That word is pejorative. GPLv3 is a strong copyleft license, and if you improve or use GCC (or use libgccjit, considered to be part of GCC) you are bound to it. If the license of libgccjit don't fit your needs, then don't use libgccjit. That is no different with any other code (e.g. GNU readline is also a GPLv3 library). In general, if an open source project has a license you don't like, don't use that open source project! Cheers Basile STARYNKEVITCH == http://starynkevitch.net/Basile opinions are mine only - les opinions sont seulement miennes Bourg La Reine, France ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: licensing questions 2019-01-01 0:00 licensing questions Paulo Matos 2019-01-01 0:00 ` Basile Starynkevitch @ 2019-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm 2019-01-01 0:00 ` Basile Starynkevitch 1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: David Malcolm @ 2019-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paulo Matos, jit On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 18:23 +0100, Paulo Matos wrote: > Hi, > > libgccjit is released with GCC and therefore GPLv3. > This seems to mean, from my relatively low knowledge in this area, > that > all libraries linking to libgccjit to create bindings and libraries > and > applications linking to this library are forced into GPLv3. > > I though LGPL was created with the purpose of stopping the viral > spread > of GPLv3. Was it the authors decision to make it GPLv3 instead of > LGPL - > which would have been, I guess, more flexible? [I am not a lawyer, and I don't represent anyone here] IIRC, my thinking at that time was that the GCC-as-shared-library feature might be controversial (as well as a technical challenge), and I didn't want to have to also deal with a license debate on top of those two. Hence I went with the GPLv3 as a path of last resistance. I haven't yet run into any issues with the license in my own work (but all my work is free software, so...) The FSF owns the copyright here. Perhaps a case could be made that it might serve the FSF's strategic interests to allow some kind of dual licensing of libgccjit, but I'm not sure either way. (It's not something I want to spend my own cycles on pursuing, but if someone else cares, fair enough; I suspect that that's more a topic for an FSF- strategy-focused-list, rather than this mailing list, though). Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: licensing questions 2019-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm @ 2019-01-01 0:00 ` Basile Starynkevitch 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Basile Starynkevitch @ 2019-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Malcolm, jit On 2/21/19 6:51 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 18:23 +0100, Paulo Matos wrote: >> Hi, >> >> libgccjit is released with GCC and therefore GPLv3. >> This seems to mean, from my relatively low knowledge in this area, >> that >> all libraries linking to libgccjit to create bindings and libraries >> and >> applications linking to this library are forced into GPLv3. >> >> I though LGPL was created with the purpose of stopping the viral >> spread >> of GPLv3. Was it the authors decision to make it GPLv3 instead of >> LGPL - >> which would have been, I guess, more flexible? > [I am not a lawyer, and I don't represent anyone here] > > IIRC, my thinking at that time was that the GCC-as-shared-library > feature might be controversial (as well as a technical challenge), and > I didn't want to have to also deal with a license debate on top of > those two. Hence I went with the GPLv3 as a path of last resistance. I don't think you could change that. libgccjit was obviously, when you start writing it, a derivative work of GCC. And at that time GCC was (and today still is) GPLv3+ licensed (with exceptions). > I haven't yet run into any issues with the license in my own work (but > all my work is free software, so...) > > The FSF owns the copyright here. Perhaps a case could be made that it > might serve the FSF's strategic interests to allow some kind of dual > licensing of libgccjit, but I'm not sure either way. (It's not > something I want to spend my own cycles on pursuing, but if someone > else cares, fair enough; I suspect that that's more a topic for an FSF- > strategy-focused-list, rather than this mailing list, though). I share your analysis, and as a past minor contributor to GCC (but not to libgccjit) I don't even want its license to change. I am happy with GCC being GPLv3+ (and that license was a positive motivation to contribute to it in the past). I would warn any reader of jit@gcc.gnu.org that wanting to change GCC license is an enormous goal (unreasonable, and that I dislike). My personal opinion is that it is unlikely to happen (unless a GPLv4 appears, which is not on my radar). My understanding is that libgccjit is part of GCC so has the same license. And wanting to change the license of GCC is really completely unreasonable (and something I personally disagree with, but in any case only the FSF could change that license, being the legal owner of GCC). Of course, discussing license on jit@gcc.gnu.org is completely off-topic. Sorry for that. Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH == http://starynkevitch.net/Basile opinions are mine only - les opinions sont seulement miennes Bourg La Reine, France ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-02-21 17:58 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-01-01 0:00 licensing questions Paulo Matos 2019-01-01 0:00 ` Basile Starynkevitch 2019-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm 2019-01-01 0:00 ` Basile Starynkevitch
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).